Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses exactly what gets destroyed (omitted fields revert to defaults: no venue, no cost, no player limit) and advises passing everything that should persist. It further discloses side effects the annotations cannot express — answers and picked teams survive if kick-off is unchanged, but are reset and the squad is notified if it moves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action and permission constraint are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by replace semantics and side effects. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical default list is slightly list-heavy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers destruction semantics, side effects, and redirects to get_squad for reading state. It stops short of stating what set_game itself returns, which is a minor gap given get_squad is offered as the inspection path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaningful semantics the schema does not: the replace-on-omission behavior ('anything left out goes back to its default, so pass what should stay'), which changes how an agent must populate the optional fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Set when and where a squad plays'), adds a scope qualifier ('organisers only'), and distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling by pointing to get_squad for the current game. An agent can tell it apart from create_squad or answer_game without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for when to use it (setting/changing a squad's kick-off and venue, restricted to organisers) and names get_squad as the way to inspect current state before/after. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives like create_squad, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.